good point, and to be worker friendly or lose their best employees to those who do provide a friendly atmosphere.
It's called piece work, and it will definitely not make everyone happy. Those that have more skills and work more efficiently are paid more than others...irregardless of race, time working for company...results are all that matter. Therefore no equal pay.
that's the only way to run an efficient economy in a globalized economy with intense competition. If you pay the wrong people too much and your competitor does not guess who goes bankrupt!!
I agree but then they open themselves up to lawsuits under the equal protection clause. Because they would not get paid equally for the same job. Can you imagine the liberal heads exploding...plus the drive to go faster and earn better pay leafs to less quality and more scrap.
Management, supervisors, QA that has to check the quality of the part...The problem with piece work is that there is no incentive for older workers to pass on the 'tricks of the trade' leaving younger workers unable to compete because of poor training. If my wage depended upon how many parts I made, assembled an hour and I came up with a process that improved productivity and efficiency...Why would I want to share that knowledge, there would be no incentive.
Why not a time limited contractual agreement between each employer and employee? Maybe a 3 month contract initially, allowing the employer and employee to evaluate the desire of a continued relation, allowing each individual employee to renegotiate with the employer a wage/salary to be paid and the length of the contract shortly prior to the end of each contract period. Employers would benefit by simply not renewing contracts of bad/non-productive workers, and good employees would benefit from the employers ability to pay more relative to the individual employees productivity.
Actually not all jobs do that. At my company top performers have to go somewhere else for a good raise, and that in the works for me too.
probably because your company does not need top performers. If they did but let them leave they would go bankrupt.
nobody said piece work was appropriate or possible in all situations. A CEO or store clerk worker does not do piece work. An experienced worker though could be hired to teach piece workers.
Piece work is primarily a manufacturing device, it would not work in retail because the primary focus is customer service. Manufacturing is a different animal, most times you are building product to fulfill orders that some pinhead in the front office has guaranteed to a customer by a certain date without knowledge of what is already in the process for other customers...But I do like overtime pay.
point is everyone who produces pieces gets paid for how good they are at it no matter where they do the work
Yeah imagine that, no racial quotas, no women, very few anyway...able to hire the best worker without the government or some pinhead filing a complaint arguing racism. Imagine how efficient our manufacturing would be in this country if companies were able to hire the best regardless of all the government BS.
I am part of the software development department of the company and the focus of the company is engineering. Their software is functional but it tends to be lower quality than it could and in many ways that low quality wastes money because they have to maintain it. I see this across a lot of companies and employees have mostly a fixed salary unless there is a promotion and there are not always bonuses for the best performers or at least there isn't enough. Some companies do try to reward top performers like Intel. But they do it in such a way that employees have to constantly write down everything they did and be evaluated for their performance and it really gets in the way of them doing their jobs. As flawed as my company is at least I don't have to deal with that nonsense.
Piecework is applied almost uniquely to manufacturing, which employs only 12% of the working population in the US. And no, though piecework is uniquely skills-related the levels of competence necessary are almost uniform - but that depends upon the volume of workers employed. Automation is assuring that piecework is no longer the primary source of jobs in most developed countries. Which simply puts the emphasis on the need of better educating our people ... PS: And, btw, the piecework rates are fairly constant, and those that can't meet the average are quickly replaced. China is about the only major economy in which piece-working is still prevalent. And I've seen reports of companies hiding the production lines because they are really sweat-shops.
If and only if the compensation paid is fair* and equitable. The U.S Bureau of the Census has placed the annual real median personal income at $31,099 in 2016. At a measly national average Minimum Wage of $7.25 an hour ($15K a year), such is definitively NOT THE CASE in America. The MW is only two-thirds of the Poverty Threshold income of $24K annually for a family of four. This year the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) enacted legislation that employees with federal contracts must be paid at least $10.20 per hour ($21,200 annually), beginning January 1, 2017 - that is, just below the Poverty Threshold level (for a family of four.)
Were the "system" one of exemplary competition. But ours in the US is not the least bit exemplary because it is oligopolistic. The management goal is therefore to obtain as much market-share as necessary to dominate markets but not monopolize them. "Efficiency" becomes then a distant secondary goal. (A monopoly is clearly illegal, unless - like Google - you invent the market from scratch) ...
All compensation is fair and equitable? ALL employees 100% agree to the compensation they receive. A job seeker should not accept a job that does not satisfy their immediate needs. No one holds a gun to anyone's head demanding they accept a job and it's compensation. If someone does not like their job and compensation they need to take personal actions to remedy this...
Your diatribe stereotypes all employers which is nonsense! ALL businesses are in competition all the time...it is survival of the fittest. Business and market expansion is a good thing if it makes sense to the business model. No matter if 'efficiency' is the 1st or 2nd or 10th goal in a company, fact remains it is the responsibility of business and management to create and sustain efficiency and effectiveness...
An interesting concept, and should be analyzed by those that know more than me. The details would be difficult to reconcile.
all companies are flawed and have to pick the level of quality, and maintenance their products will require. Higher quality means higher price but less maintenance. For some customers that's best, but for others not. I remember when I was 22 being shocked to find out how much cheaper per mile an expensive tire was. I ask why would anyone spend 80% to get a cheap tire with 40% of the expected tread life. He said, because they can afford the expensive tire. Ultimately the Republican free market decides if a company is significantly flawed.
Total 100% liberal BS of course. Only 12% of fortune 500 companies in 1955 are still fortune 500 companies today! Lesson one at Harvard Business School is that a big company is doomed and your job is to try to save it knowing it is a losing battle.